Roger Ebert's "Life Itself" documentary

If anyone is interested in his life / this topic, it is definitely worth the VOD rental.

You will all be shocked to learn that while the film shows Siskel & Ebert on The Tonight Show & Letterman, no reference is ever made to their frequent Stern show appearances...

Be forewarned that the film does not shy away at all from his illness. He gave the director full access to himself in the hospital, painfully getting his throat suctioned out and what it's really like to be terminally ill.

But Ebert and his wife also allow themselves to be shown being frustrated and intemperate etc. And they allow Gene Siskel's widow to tell stories about what an asshole Ebert could be.

Very honest depiction of an interesting, complicated life. No Richard Roeper at all, which was an interesting choice as well.

Mmmm - I really liked his work, but that's how I think he should be remembered. Dying isn't pleasant - this isn't new or revelatory ...

And what's this Siskel/Playboy thing?

Click to expand...

He was actually very philosophical about his pending death. He was kind of analyzing and critiquing that process like he did film. I think he wanted to share his thoughts and help other people not be so afraid.

Siskel: sometime after he graduated college but before the first incarnation of the show, Hef sort of 'adopted' him as his best buddy / little brother, and he jetted around everywhere with Hef and the girls. They were showing pics of them in the Grotto with nude playmates and all that 70s scene. Gene was goofy looking as ever, sitting on a private jet draped with playmates. It was bizarre to see.

Roger also liked the ladies including what he called "paid ladies." Both of their wives accepted them for the men they were, and were laughing about it.

I loved Roger Ebert. I thought he was an amazing writer and human being. Even when he couldn't speak or eat, he managed to find life worth living.

I watched the documentary and it made me realize just how hard Rogers's last years of life were. The fact that he was able to engage with people and find causes to believe in makes me appreciate the person he was.

I would have curled up on the floor like a bitch.

ETA: my all time favorite review of Ebert's is a toss up between, "North," and "Jack Frost." Two miserable pieces of shit movies.

I feel bad for the guy that he had to suffer with such a horrible affliction, but he was really a bastard. He spent most of his professional career looking down on his colleagues with unbelievable arrogance because he won a Pulitzer Prize in 1975. Even though those prizes are handed out by a tight circle of people to a tight circle of people, no different then the Academy Awards, a small group of assholes that hands awards to the same assholes within their tight group. Here he only won that one then, but he would bring it up every chance he could to prove he was better then who he was arguing with or being interviewed by. He was a mediocre critic at best and had huge laughable screw-ups like when he blasted Unforgiven as a horrible movie, he then had to say that it was a crowded noisey theater when he screened it and wasn't able to soak in all the deep drama. This after he was laughed at by all other critics when the movie got high ratings and then the Oscar.

What really showed what a blowhard he was is when the whole world had to hear his hack one sided expert opinions about politics, this from a guy that watches movies for a living! That along with the endless stories about how he treated people, I guess karma really is a bitch.